As you may know, we sometimes write open letters to public figures when issues enter our realm that are not to our liking. So far, when we write an open letter for the blog, we actually send the letter to the recipient. Our first letter promoted interfaith tolerance and sensitivity and was a genuine plea for a positive outcome. We emailed that letter. Our second letter was…less genuine, but our position on the issue was transparent. We emailed that letter. Our third letter was full on satire – a la “The Colbert Report.†Aside from the postscript, our true feelings on the matter were not direct in the post. We certainly hope our readers enjoyed the letter and gathered we were, indeed, being sarcastic (oh, so sarcastic).
We have not yet emailed this letter.
Why the hesitation? Jax and I have been discussing the merits of sending the open letters to recipients. The first letter was sincere, so that was easy to send. Then second letter was snarky, but that whole situation was ridiculous and had no direct impact on policy or practice (not that we marginalize the power of indirect impact). So, that was easy to send. The issue addressed in the third letter, however, is serious with both legal and practical implications. Do we really want to send a satirical letter to the Governor of California, or other such public figures?
DON-KEY by Anonymous. A classic example of political satire.
One the one hand, the tone of the letter accurately conveys our imperious attitude towards the issue – that the current situation is so unjust it mocks our justice system, if not our constitution. On the other hand, the letter doesn’t promote change or suggest a corrective course. As Jax put it, “…we are being humorously malicious and venting our frustration.†Are we missing a teachable moment and an opportunity to present a righteous (vs. self-righteous) resolution?
Let’s suppose we draft a second version of the letter to Governor Brown, one that is genuine and articulate, and we send that letter instead. Are we then being dishonest with our readers by posting one letter on the blog, but sending another to the public figure in question? We can probably figure out logistics that allow us to do both – post satire, but send honesty. However, if we do not intend to mail satire to public figures, should we then abandon the practice (of writing satirical open letters)?
What do you think readers? Your opinion matters!
9 comments
k! says:
Mar 1, 2011
I am in the “don’t send it” camp, personally. I feel that way for several reasons:
1) The letter, to put it bluntly, an emotional outlash against a situation you feel is injust, but in my reading I found it basically just a b****fest — there’s nothing constructive in it. It merely rails against a decision that has already been made without presenting reasonable alternatives. If your goal is to represent the legitimate outcry of members of a generally misunderstood religious minority, you’re not doing yourselves any favors.
2) If I was Governor Brown, I wouldn’t read more than two sentences due to the heavy satirical tone. You do cite some interesting, valid statistics and glaring inconsistencies, but they’re way down in the middle of your discourse, and I have trouble believing he’d ever get to them given the manner in which this is written. Who reads the whole way through hate mail?
3) On another blunt note, you are not a California taxpayer or voter and while I think this important decision will eventually reach a national stage, for now it’s strictly a state issue. Why should he give two damns what you think? Again, the tone doesn’t help you make a persuasive, outsider argument.
As far as sending different letters — I think if you want to call it an open letter, what you send needs to be what you post and vice versa. If satire isn’t appropriate to the intended audience, save it for another time.
There. Have I been nasty enough?? 😉
ScottTwo says:
Mar 2, 2011
Regarding the question of dishonesty with your readers, perhaps you could post both letters and only send the serious one to whichever entity is addressed.
Surfing the Internet is like watching tv: there’s a certain amount of personal responsibility on the part of the audience to filter their own content. Anyone who finds your satirical open letter can choose to read on or click away to another part of the web if they think your message isn’t to their liking. A letter sent directly to a recipient, however, forces their attention on your message and should be sincere. If that recipient later comes to your site and reads a satirical interpretation of the message, it was their choice to follow up and enter the personalized confines of your blog, thereby absolving you of responsibility.
I think posting both versions preserves the integrity of your intent while offering Colbert-style entertainment to those readers who enjoy the snark.
k! says:
Mar 2, 2011
I absolutely agree with this. Well said, ScottTwo.
Charles says:
Mar 2, 2011
The fact that it’s on the searchable Internet makes it open. If you want to also put it in an envelope or a direct email, fine. Either way it’s not dishonest to your readers. I’m sure that the sarcastic letter is still far more eloquent, coherent, and relevant than most mail opened by an unpaid intern in the basement of the Capitol – it won’t be read by anyone close to the officials, but there’s no reason against sending it.
Chris says:
Mar 2, 2011
To be honest, when I was reading your open letters I thought they were posts only, not anything that is actually mailed out. I think in terms of what you post online, you can certainly pick the tone and topics. However, if you certainly plan on sending a physical letter to someone, I think you should think in terms of whether or not an actual letter will do anything.
The truth is, since you are not California voter, your letter sent to the Governor, will not get any further than the mail room. I think that you should consider your audience, method of delievery, and your intent when you write a letter, or prior to posting it. That may help you decide what should be sent by mail, or merely posted on your website.
Maybe the purpose of your open letters is to state your opinion and thoughts (satire or otherwise), and leave that information out there for public perusal. Or try a targeted response and submit your letters to other online sources or publications.
However if you are just being a bit snarky, you may just want to keep to a blog post.
Brad ley Sullivan says:
Mar 3, 2011
I think keeping the satire as an open letter for your readers should not be abandoned…it honestly conveigs your thoughts and attitudes, as well as your personalities.
Regarding sending satyrical letters to public figures, I believe they will have a negative effect to your cause. Righteous, true, honest, and yet they will likely fall on deaf ears. So, sending a more serious letter to them as you suggested would be the way to go.
Then, you can simply add a note to the open letter that states the reasons for sending a different letter to the public figures and which has said letter available to read as well (perhaps as a comment).
T.K. says:
Mar 3, 2011
I enjoyed your open letter post and your web site is a great place to post your satirical snarky comments.
I doubt a letter directly to Governor Brown would get his attention if it even got through his screenings.
If it were me, I’d send the same open letter to the Sacramento Newspaper as an editorial instead of a letter directly to the governor. And keep posting those kinds of concerns on your web site.
B says:
Mar 5, 2011
I agree with so much of what’s been said; that your “open letter” is open simply by the fact that it is on the internet, and that if you were to send a paper copy, it’s certain it would not make it through the many levels of staff to reach the governor’s desk.
Should that stop you? At least one person in that office will actually read it. Maybe it will just be an intern. So? Maybe something will stick. That’s one more person who will have read it who hadn’t before.
What you should NOT do, is try to make it “serious” by re-writing it. The whole point of the style of your composition is that it more effectively delivers its message by being a satire.
Consider sending it not just to the governor’s office, but to various media outlets, including those Comedy Central news shows we know and love. Go big, go bold. You’ve composed a biting satire. Put it out there. Ask your friends to forward it, too. You’ll give all who actually read it a nice chuckle, and you’ll be on their radar. Maybe some of them will start reading your blog. Maybe not.
But, honestly, where’s the harm? You’re afraid it might be ignored by the people for whom it was intended? News: It’s being ignored by them right now, because they don’t even know it exists.
Take it to Mr. Universe for a broad-wave. You know you want to. And you never know – maybe there’s a wave right behind you, ready to follow your lead.
B says:
Mar 12, 2011
Oh. Oops.
That last line was supposed to read “maybe there’s a wave of support right behind you…”
Sigh. Do I really work for a publisher? Sometimes I wonder. 😉